According to the New York Times, Let It Be producers Jeff Parry and Annerin Productions agreed to create a show with Rain Corporation in 2005. Four years later, that agreement became a "50-50 per cent partnership" in the Broadway production.

The suit contends that Parry sought permission to create a London production of Rain and later changed its name to Let It Be. The show began previews two days before the original agreement expired, when Parry then informed Rain Corporation it would only be due 7.125% of revenue.

The lawyer for Let It Be, Peter S Cane, told the New York Times that the two productions approached the same source material differently. "Let It Be is a tribute to the Beatles," he said, "not to the four guys who impersonate the Beatles."

Cane continued: "How do you monopolize the ability to present an impersonation of the Beatles? How many different ways can you really do it? The Beatles acted a certain way, they played certain notes, they spoke a certain way."

While Rain Corporation's lawyer Dale M Cendali did not comment, the lawsuit alleges that all but three of the 31 songs in Rain are also in Let It Be and "the artwork used as background during the performance of many of those songs are similar or identical". The lawsuit also claims that musical arrangements, script, costumes and wigs all owe a debt to the previous production.

On the London premiere of Let It Be, the Guardian's theatre critic Michael Billington called the musical "an exercise in faintly necrophiliac nostalgia".